↓ Skip to main content

Implantation reduces the negative effects of bio-logging devices on birds

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Biology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implantation reduces the negative effects of bio-logging devices on birds
Published in
Journal of Experimental Biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1242/jeb.076554
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig R. White, Phillip Cassey, Natalie G. Schimpf, Lewis G. Halsey, Jonathan A. Green, Steven J. Portugal

Abstract

Animal-borne logging or telemetry devices are widely used for measurements of physiological and movement data from free-living animals. For such measurements to be relevant, however, it is essential that the devices themselves do not affect the data of interest. A recent meta-analysis reported an overall negative effect of these devices on the birds that bear them, i.e. on nesting productivity, clutch size, nest initiation date, offspring quality, body condition, flying ability, foraging behaviours, energy expenditure and survival rate. Method of attachment (harness, collar, glue, anchor, implant, breast-mounted or tailmount) had no influence on the strength of these effects but anchored and implanted transmitters had the highest reported rates of device-induced mortality. Furthermore, external devices, but not internal devices, caused an increase in 'device-induced behaviour' (comfort behaviours such as preening, fluffing and stretching, and unrest activities including unquantifiable 'active' behaviours). These findings suggest that, with the exception of device-induced behaviour, external attachment is preferable to implantation. In the present study we undertake a meta-analysis of 183 estimates of device impact from 39 studies of 36 species of bird designed to explicitly compare the effects of externally attached and surgically implanted devices on a range of traits, including condition, energy expenditure and reproduction. In contrast to a previous study, we demonstrate that externally attached devices have a consistent detrimental effect (i.e. negative influences on body condition, reproduction, metabolism and survival), whereas implanted devices have no consistent effect. We also show that the magnitude of the negative effect of externally attached devices decreases with time. We therefore conclude that device implantation is preferable to external attachment, providing that the risk of mortality associated with the anaesthesia and surgery required for implantation can be mitigated. We recommend that studies employing external devices use devices that can be borne for long periods, and, wherever possible, deploy devices in advance of the time period of interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Latvia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 142 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 25%
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 53%
Environmental Science 20 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 28 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2013.
All research outputs
#8,426,836
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Biology
#4,410
of 9,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,043
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Biology
#83
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.